PRIYANKA RAKESH KAMBLE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these petitions, common grievances have been raised by the petitioners firstly that the offences which are registered under the Bombay Prohibition Act cannot form basis for the purpose of externing the petitioners from the Wardha District, which was declared as a dry district. Secondly, while externing the petitioners for the maximum period of two years, no reasons are assigned by the externing authority, what was the need to award maximum period of externment has not been provided.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsels for the petitioners as well as the learned APPs for the respondent/State.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that crimes under Bombay Prohibition Act are registered against the petitioners. Against the petitioner in Writ Petition No.847/2025, there are as many as 34 crimes, Writ Petition No.858/2025 there are four crimes registered against petitioner No.1 and five crimes registered against petitioner No.2. So far as, the Writ Petition No.849/2025 is concerned, against the petitioner No.1, there are twenty crimes whereas against petitioner No.2, there are six crimes. It is contended that this Court need not go into facts of the case as the two issues raised in these petitions are no more res integra, reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Suraj Ransing Bire and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., in Writ Petition No.3572/2010 and the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Deepak Laxman Dongre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., reported in 2022 (2) Supreme 445.